Discuss how we can hasten progress towards enlarging representation. There are two primary components to this: 1) educating others in order to gain the public support necessary; and, 2) ensuring implementation via a constitutional amendment.

Forum rulesThis forum is only for discussion related to hastening progress towards enlarging representation. Unrelated discussion threads will be moved or deleted.

Jeff, we really, really need a book. We need a physical, well-documented thing for people to flip through and hold up. It is completely necessary that someone write a book on this topic. Tom Woods briefly mentions the issue the first chapter of Nullification, but I'm sure it probably went right over the heads of anyone who reads it.

The term limits nonsense has been heavily influenced by many books. There was a key one in the 80s or 90s, though I don't recall its name, that made a real difference.

Please, please write a book on this topic. It will do more than a website, blog, forum, video, or doomed court case.

Stephen, I appreciate your initiative. Sometimes "those who can't" simply don't have the time. At least, that is the main problem in my case. To be fair, Paul was offering a constructive suggestion (rather than a complaint).

If I did have the time, the higher priority would be to revamp the TTO website as this is the most effective way to reach the largest number of our fellow citizens. Paul and others have suggested that as well. Among other things, this would involve reorganizing all the content (both existing and future).

Though it is a short pamphlet rather than a book, I encourage people to read "Taking Back Our Republic" to get an overview of the need for smaller congressional districts. The footnotes in that pamphlet lead to additional reading.

A non-fiction book produced by a collective effort via the WWW would certainly require a tremendous amount of editorial oversight and fact-checking in order to ensure that the final product was of the highest quality. It would also need to be narrowly focused on this subject, avoiding partisanship and unrelated political agendas.

I agree that such an undertaking would require editorial oversight. I submit that such oversight could be exercise both during the process, and upon completion. The final product could be finalized by the "author" that puts his name on it (presumably, you; although I would expect credit going to those that would contribute along the way:).

My comment, "those who can do, those who can't, complain" was not intended towards anybody at all, but was more or less a rallying cry. As mentioned, I don't know of any similar undertaking, which makes all the more attractive.

Of course, if you're going to write a book collectively, you need to have some form of organization. It can be done.

If, for instance, we collectively "ratify" an outline - by chapter - and then agree to the overall outline of a particular chapter, then it becomes a matter of simply putting flesh on the bone.

All could contribute, be it in the form of ideas, entire paragraphs, or a complete chapter. Everyone could make suggestions and changes, and when I sufficiently palatable product has been penned, we could turn our attention to the next chapter.

I believe such a project would be particularly suited to the goals of the group. Not only would a book raise awareness of the 30K:1 movement, but a book written in such a manner would nearly market itself. The text could be made available, on-line for free, and if there were ever any publishing offers, the funds received in consideration for such a deal could fund the PAC.

I'm a writer and editor and have actually been working on formulating a book for this purpose, but I'm still looking for a mathematical programmer to test a final theory that would shape the book's over-arching structure. (I know that sounds strange and unrelated, but I assure you its not and that there's a method in my madness.)

I'm happy to discuss the book further and believe it does need to be the work of a few hands to fact check and provide supporting material. My editing would be more to keep the book focused and stylistically consistent. The format I'm planning wouldn't require Jeff to do much more work than he's already done, so I don't anticipate that being a problem. But I've yet to bring it up until now, because...as I said...I'm still searching for a mathematical programmer to test the book's final theory before the nit-gritty coordination can be arranged.

More on that later, unless someone can knows a brilliant mathematician.

Those who can should . All of us here are doing something.I could help with the design of a book and layout etc but would not feel at all able to write a book due to NOT being an "expert" or even fully understanding this issue yet. I was shocked to see the graphs illustrating the shrinking representation in the United States. The 1.2 pixel dot in the center is correctly shown in the largest illustration but is scaled accurately in the smaller two.370X351 750X7911024X786I believe it is outrageous that the United States even calls itself a democracy with so little citizen representation. I believe there is very little chance of litigating ANYTHING in the US Courts. Getting a Circuit Court to examine the issue was good but a very good BOOK could be done and quickly accomplish more.

I had to look in the dictionary for most of the text in the "Whatever" forum rules. Was that a joke?

I am EXTREMELY adapt at litigating as should be easy to see.Google Inc, et al alleged spending nearly half a million against me in US Court for the last three years.

Sincerely,

Curtis J Neeley Jr., MFA

Ending the open porn-ternet.Neeley v NameMedia Inc, et al (5:09-cv-05151)(11-2558)Appeal fully briefed and before the Eighth Circuit The obvious result is FCC regulation of wire communications; -even when called “the Internet” for disguise!

======================================================================================================Books require authors and I can design and assemble said book but there needs to be a "book committee" and an editor.PDF files are text searchable by search engines and are the files that books are best done in anyway. I have a LOT of time to donate and I do EXTREMELY good website work and photography.

The Internet wire communications are the ONLY way to allow this type population to be democratically governed.My litigation may be just as ignored as the Supreme Court did with the one from here. My litigation could result in 17 USC being declared unconstitutional and the FCC being ordered to regulate Internet wire communications.

A book has already been written "Article the first of the Bill of Rights", Bryan W. Brickner (ISBN: 978-1-84728-951-3) (See Below for chapter summary). I am pretty sure this book is pro-enlargement, having subsequently read some of the authors blogspot posts (for example, http://bryanbrickner.blogspot.com/2006_ ... chive.html ). I have only read the 1st 20 pages available in Google books preview. I recommend working on promotion of TTO. Possibly contacting the author for additional info after reading it. It has been an interesting read so far. Again, I recommend skype meetings to promote the website and our "Right to Representation". Just talking with others who support this idea would be encouraging for me, and hopefully fruitful as well.

Chapter Summaries for Article the first of the Bill of RightsBryan W. Brickner (ISBN: 978-1-84728-951-3)Thesis: Constitutional representation is the forgotten story of We the People.The US Constitution, in Article 1, Section 2, and Clause 3, as written and never amended, guarantees We the People a right to representation at the ratio of “one for every thirty Thousand.” Article the first of the Bill of Rights would have amended the ratio and changed it to “fifty thousand.” But it was not ratified. That means one for every thirty thousand remains the supreme law of the land and the constitutional ratio of representation.Chapter 1 argues that our Revolutionary War was for constitutional representation of citizens and against virtual representation. The founders fought for a written constitution that the people could live by.Chapter 2 highlights the fundamental role of the representation ratio at the Constitutional Convention and the founders’ support for the compromise. George Washington acknowledges the representation ratio as “among the exceptionable parts” of the Constitution.Chapter 3 discusses the post-revolutionary divide between Federalists and AntiFederalists, The Federalist Papers, and the New York ratifying convention, to see how the representation ratio is portrayed. This debate centers on how Congress will use Article 1, Section 2, and Clause 3 of the Constitution.Chapter 4 clarifies the issues surrounding the ratification of Article the first and the other eleven Articles in the Bill of Rights. This chapter focuses on the forgotten element in a representative government – representing We the People.Chapter 5 describes what happened during the first census and why President Washington vetoed the first attempt by Congress in 1792 to augment House membership. Unable to override the veto, the Second Congress passed a new law that set the ratio at one Representative for every 33,000. In essence, Congress ignored the Constitution instead of changing it.Chapter 6 points out that yes, any Congress can set House membership, but members of Congress are bound by oath to obey the Constitution. The Constitution dictates the use of a ratio. The legal term is cy pres – as near to the constitution as possible.Chapter 7 addresses the immediate future of constitutional representation and finds four alternatives: first, We the People could enforce the ratified representation ratio found in the Constitution, one representative for every thirty thousand inhabitants of a state; second, twenty-seven states could ratify Article the first (completing the Bill of Rights), amending the Constitution with the new representation ratio of one for every fifty thousand persons; third, we could amend the Constitution with a new representation ratio; or fourth, the status quo of congressional representation with 435 Representatives for a nation of 300 million.

banleystuck wrote:A book has already been written "Article the first of the Bill of Rights", Bryan W. Brickner

Unfortunately, much of Brickner's book was derived (if not plagiarized) from content which was posted in 2004 and 2005 on the Thirty-Thousand.org website. I had an e-mail exchange with the author around that time (which he initiated), back when he had his "Newtopia" web site. He indicated that he discovered this subject on the TTO site. Then Brickner subsequently wrote his book without contacting me or giving credit to TTO. I only found out about the book after it was written (from a friend who read it and then called my attention to how derivative it is).

The objective of Thirty-Thousand.org is to distribute this information freely in order to maximize public awareness and support. The most definitive work on "Article the first" is the "The Minimum and Maximum Size of the U. S. House of Representatives" which can be downloaded here. There are additional papers available from this page: Quantitative Historical Analyses of the House of Representatives.

See Research Resources and Links for papers and articles published by others. In particular, I recommend "A House of Our Own or A House We’ve Outgrown? An Argument for Increasing the Size of the House of Representatives" from the Columbia Journal of Law and Social Problems (which is available on that page).

The best single document for those wishing to champion the cause of representational enlargement is Taking Back Our Republic, which contains footnotes which link to additional sources. Everyone should download and read that pamphlet!

I saw the post on Article the first of the Bill of Rights and representation and wanted to say hello. The book will be available as a free PDF in about a month; in the meantime I can send copies upon request (the PDF attachment bounced-back on today's try). We could also make it available here on Thirty Thousand.

A shining example of ignorance and apathy in this country is the fact that the average American does not know much about math, nor care anything about typos. Article the First was sabotaged by a typo. Even worse, by a mathematical typo. Write a book if you wish. More power to you, I say. But I guarantee your book will never make the bestseller list. There are better means available than books to break the ice and get things moving in the campaign for support of equitable representation.

For example, we might seek out a gifted cartoonist or animator to tell the story. I daresay the idea has already been suggested by Mr. Quidam’s thumbnail portrait. The ideal cartoon spokesman, in my opinion, would be an innocent genius, like Linus in the Peanuts comic strip, or even better, Thor in B.C., but I will have to admit that recruiting such well-known celebrities might be difficult, so we should consider starting small.

How about surfing YouTube, keeping an eye out for some talented and ambitious animators with a political bent, and then bouncing the idea off them? We would gain some P.R., and in return the artist would gain a theme on which to build their portfolio and their reputation. Their best animated videos could be linked to this website.

The possibilities are endless. Potential scenarios for some short animated videos, to suggest a few, might include (1) a technically simple stick-figure professor lecturing a stick-figure student with a blackboard as a prop, (2) a more sophisticated animation of a musing soliloquy as used by the Gecko in his Geico commercials, (3) an easily composed cartoon of an ant and a fly ambulating across the face of the Bill of Rights document, arguing over the significance of three “less thans” and only one “more than,” (4) some animated figures acting the parts of the founding fathers as they debate Article the First, complete with historic quotations, or (5) the debut of an original off-the-wall character, a spokesman whom we could name something like “Square-Bob Sponge-Pants.”

All joking aside, the peculiar nature of the problem, i.e. this defect in the Bill of Rights which in its final wording diminishes our rights rather than protects them, is better suited to being broken down into short animated “sound-bytes” than it is suited for publication in a scholarly tome. Besides, videos, as the medium of the day, would reach more people in less time. Political cartoons can pack a punch. Sooner or later, as public interest increments geometrically, the issue of increased representation will one day capture the imagination and fancy of the masses. Some influential scholars and pundits are then sure to take note and jump on the bandwagon. Eventually even the politicians will be forced to acknowledge the issue.

Meanwhile, I second Mr. Quidam’s conjecture that this website remains the cheapest, the best, and the most effective way to reach out and educate the public. Spread the word about the forgotten first article of the Bill of Rights, and tell others about this website. Make a donation if you can. And please give some serious thought to the cartoon idea. If we could scrape up the dough, we might even be able to hold a contest, advertise it on YouTube, and offer cash prizes to the best animators.

conestogawagonman wrote:we might seek out a gifted cartoonist or animator to tell the story.

Explaining the need for smaller congressional districts, as well as the fascinating history of Article the first, could best be done via a series of compelling short videos that have the qualities necessary to go "viral" in a busy ADD world. However, those have to be professionally produced, not homemade or rinky dink. To get that done, we need an experienced video producer who personally understands & supports representational enlargement and is willing to produce these videos at a discounted price.

Long ago (in internet time) I suddenly needed an avatar for a discussion forum posting. A recent portrait of me by my then 5-year-old daughter seemed sufficient for that purpose, and it is more flattering than a photograph would be!

conestogawagonman wrote:...this website remains the cheapest, the best, and the most effective way to reach out and educate the public. Spread the word about the forgotten first article of the Bill of Rights, and tell others about this website.

I am currently writing a book tentatively entitled CONVENTION USA: How 6,166 First Responders Can Save The Republic. I have printed out Jeff Quidam’s excellent work, Taking Back Our Republic, and I want to quote extensively from it. My publisher expects me to introduce Mr. Quidam to my readers by way of enhancing the credibility of the quotes. However, I have been unable to make contact with Mr. Quidam to obtain his approval, as he does not return my phone calls or emails.

You are creating a book here. You have good input. A variety of ideas, people who really aren't necessarly policy wonks get to express their opinions and benefit from the analysis and give and take. What you need is a big name sponsor, a publisher and an editor. Someone from Hollywood or the political spectrum that would be the "author", and an a good editor.

Use the book idea to make the site work harder, to engage more people on the site, get posts from big name bloggers, and politicians. Put on your journalist had and go get answers to "what is your stance" "What is your opinion of" "will you comment on" etc....

Mr X we want to know what you think about a virtual congress, 6000 representatives, a states Consitutional convention, America without the 16th and 17th amendments and thirty thousand per representative for debate on our site and inclusion in our book. Then post them here and get feed back